TMI Blog2009 (4) TMI 562X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oms duty to the tune of Rs. 10,56,90,738/- along with interest and the Central Excise duty to the tune of Rs. 1,34,40,930/- along with interest and has imposed penalty of Rs. 10,56,90,738/- as well as Rs. 1,34,40,930/. The authority has also ordered confiscation of the goods while giving option of redemption on payment of fine of Rs. 25.00 lakhs and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 25.00 lakhs. The said order was passed pursuant to remand of the matter by the Tribunal by its order dated 27-9-2006 in Appeal No. E/2108 1993/06. By the said order of remand, the Tribunal had directed the lower authority to decide the matter on merits after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to both the parties to whom the show cause notice dated 6-10 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... manded by the lower authority in order to enable the appellant to argue the matter on merits. 6. As already observed above, the Tribunal in its earlier ELT order dated 27-9-2006 has specifically remanded the matter to decide the matter on merits and it is to be noted that the said order was passed pursuant to the grievance of the appellant that no opportunity was given to them by the lower authority to put forth their case. Consequent to the remand of the matter, the records show that ample opportunity was given to the appellants but the appellants did not make use of the same nor extended necessary cooperation to the lower authority in deciding the matter. The conduct of the appellant indeed discloses their non-cooperative attitude on on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he entire duty demand. Proceedings before BIFR and other difficulties are not sufficient to establish that there is any financial hardship as such to the appellant for complying the statutory obligations regarding pre-deposit. 7. It was also sought to be argued on behalf of the appellant that the confirmation of demand for duty could be only after the Development Commissioner decides the matter which has been referred to him in terms of Board s Circular No 21/95-Cus and the matter before the Development Commissioner is still pending and therefore, the authority cannot demand duty. 8. In the circumstances of the case, to what extent the said circular is attracted is to be decided on merits and at this stage we find that the appellant wou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
